Trickle Down?Follow

Theft? Really, you're falling back on that defense? Is this Varus' new sock?

I agree that we should ensure the necessities for all of the populace. Things like food, clean water, shelter, medical care and the like should be guaranteed, such that people do not have to do without those resources. Our civilization has advanced to a stage where allocating enough for that should not be an overly excessive burden.

If there was a way for creating a system that would not have these counterproductive characteristics, I would consider it a more viable alternative.

So if someone is more than capable of working but chooses not to, for whatever reason, the onus is on the rest of the citizenry to care for that person?

Mind you I don't think anyone is advocating not caring for the elderly, disabled, or those with mental orders. What we're talking about is a person who is a perfectly healthy fully functioning american citizen who simply chooses not to work.

What's sad is most of you don't see the inherent danger in confiscating wealth from one class to disburse to another. There is not one instance in recorded history where this has worked. Why would it now?

For a shot of reality just look at what the NY governor just said about raising the taxes on the wealthiest citizens and corporations. When times are difficult what you don't do is tax those who control the means of production.

There's a reason many corporations choose to do business outside of the US.

Remember it's not about paying ones fair share for businesses it's strictly about the bottom line.If a business is more profitable operating out of India guess where they're going to build that new plant?

So if someone is more than capable of working but chooses not to, for whatever reason, the onus is on the rest of the citizenry to care for that person?

Wouldn't a much more efficient endeavor be having a neutral mediator (the community-at-large as represented through a state) purchase as many shovels as are necessary for all participants, as to maximize gains? Or is mutual benefit not the name of the game for capitalism?

The community, given appropriate representation, is not an authoritarian government; in fact, it's exactly the opposite of any such definition (the Soviet Union was state-capitalist: fascist in every aspect other than conservative populism). If there aren't enough shovels in the world for everyone who needs one, the proper solution would be to allocate shovels to whatever purposes will generate the most benefit to everyone, never excluding one specific group for greater benefit.

This statement can only even be considered if you assume that governments and private corporations have the same goals. Obviously they don't even come close.

The goal of private enterprise is to buffer the bottom line in any way possible

the goal of government is to serve the people.

The goal of private enterprise is to make a profit, yes. But how it makes a profit under capitalism is by bringing a better/cheaper product to market. Overwhelmingly so. And this tends to help improve standard of living for everyone over time as well.

No. The goal of the government can vary wildly, however the method the government uses is to control the actions of the citizens. Thus, regardless of objective, every action taken by government results in increased control of the people and their activities.

Are you arguing that the standard of living at all economic levels has not improved in the US over the last say century? How about the last 50 years? Heck. How about just the last 20 years?

I have checked reality. Reality shows that our lives are improved as a result of new products and services.

Not for exploited third-world workers it doesn't. Or are living conditions in sweatshops better than those in subsistence farms? (answer: they are not, and they will not improve, looking at current trends.)

That's not a bad thing, especially if the government, and I know this is a crazy idea... is the people.

You're ranting against the very existence of states, here. Are you an individualist anarchist?

Well, actually, median real wage adjusted for cost of living in the U.S. has stagnated since the 70's. But, yes, as stuff is made, people will have more stuff in general. What we're arguing against is the fairness of the current model of distributing that stuff.

The problem ElneClare is that you are looking at this from the perspective of someone trying to maintain a traditional family structure. And for those people, public assistance is difficult to obtain. But if you take someone who is not connected to a family, living on their own with zero support, it's much much easier.

That's also one of the big arguments against it. Because there is a perception that it is helping destroy that traditional family. For some people, the solution to the dilemma you present is to just not remain connected to anyone else. So the single mother distances herself from her family, for exactly the reason that on her own she can get public assistance, while if she lives with her family, she cannot. She's sold a false sense of independence, where the government replaces the family.


The sad fact is that the system encourages people to break their ties with others and embrace the system itself. It's much much easier if you do that. If you have no-one, you can get all the emergency aid you need. You can get all the medical aid you need. You only have difficulties because you're living with someone and have a large extended family. If you were single with no attachments, you'd find that most of those hurdles disappear.

False! Ive known single moms work 3 jobs so not to need any benefits. The women who seem healthy and receive government aid, are either unemployable due to fact that they have invisible disabilities or lack enough education to know how to get a job.

Sadly the stereotype of the welfare queens has to doue more to lack of good schools, added with families that never had to go on job interviews. All the things people say is wasted on poor folk does matter, when it comes to raising ones standard of living. I sat though many a class about job hunting skills, required by the state for anyone receiving benefits, were the instructor couldn't get some people to understand why they needed to dress differently for a job interview, then what was fashionable at the time.



So Wrong it's pitiful. You have 30 days to provide the forms requested. After 30 days any aid you receive will end and they will demand repayment if they even suspect any fraud. That's why I try to keep a file current with anything they might ask for. Covering ones ***, when one barely getting by is far more important then when one is able to afford a fines or two.




Of course. I was not arguing that you cannot or even should not lend it for free. I was talking about choice and ownership. If I own the shovel, I get to choose if I lend it out and at what terms. I was responding to the idea that I should somehow be compelled to lend out my shovel simply because I have one.


The shovel was an analogy for wealth redistribution. In this case, letting someone else use it isn't a choice, it's assumed to be mandatory. Some authority has passed a law making it illegal for me not to let my neighbor borrow my shovel any time he wants. I think you can agree that this would be bad, right? Yet, that's essentially what we're doing when we mandate tax levels for some to provide for benefits to others. It's like lending the shovel, only I don't get a choice, and those who I've lent it to are not grateful to me for doing it...